Rules
1,053 rules · page 14 of 22
Classify tool delegations as appropriate, convenient…
Before delegating a cognitive task to a tool, classify whether the delegation is appropriate (tool does it better and verification is easy), convenient (saves time but you could do it), or critical (you cannot perform it without the tool), because critical delegations create capability gaps when tools fail.
Periodically perform critical delegated tasks without…
For critical tool delegations where failure would compromise your effectiveness, maintain periodic unassisted performance of the delegated capability to prevent atrophy of the biological skill, treating the practice as architectural redundancy rather than inefficiency.
Govern your tool use with explicit policies
Design tool-use policies that define which tools you allow for which tasks, under what conditions, and with what fallback behavior when tools fail, treating this as governance of your extended cognitive architecture rather than as tool preferences.
Test habit automaticity by effort level, not frequency…
Verify habit automaticity by checking whether the behavior fires from context cues with minimal conscious effort rather than checking execution frequency, because consistency maintained through willpower is not delegation—true automaticity means the cue triggers the routine without deliberation.
Add temporary scaffolding during the first 2-4 weeks…
Protect the habit formation transfer period (first 2-4 weeks) with environmental supports that make cues more salient and routines easier to initiate, treating these supports as temporary scaffolding to be removed once the delegation completes rather than permanent infrastructure.
Automate each habit link before adding the next — stacking…
When building behavioral chains through habit stacking, automate each link fully before adding the next link to the chain, because stacking unautomatic behaviors creates a pile of effortful tasks that collapses under executive function depletion rather than a self-sustaining sequence.
Separate reasoning from credentials
When someone shares expertise or makes a recommendation, separate your evaluation of their reasoning from your evaluation of their credentials by asking 'Would I find this compelling if it came from a low-status source?'
Apply the defense test to AI conclusions
Before acting on AI-generated conclusions, apply the defense test: 'Could I defend this conclusion without the AI's output? Do I understand the reasoning well enough to identify where it might be wrong?'—if not, do the cognitive work before proceeding.
The accountability check
Before adopting anyone else's recommendation, apply the accountability check: 'Am I willing to own this decision as though it were entirely my own?'—if you would deflect blame to the source upon failure, you have not processed the input as influence.
When an objection dissolves from social pressure…
When you notice an objection dissolving before you voice it—not because someone addressed it, but because the social cost seems too high—recognize this as the compliance instinct activating and deliberately externalize the concern in writing before deciding whether to voice it.
Write your position before emotionally charged…
During emotionally charged disagreements in close relationships, write down your actual position before the conversation and return to it afterward to check whether changes were driven by persuasion or anxiety relief.
As the sole dissenter, state your position AND one…
During dissent in group settings, when you are the sole opposing voice, explicitly state both your position and one condition under which you would change your mind to signal intellectual humility alongside independence.
Use 'I think/want/believe' in relationship disagreements…
In close relationships, frame disagreements using 'I think/want/believe' language rather than 'don't you think' or 'most people' formulations to take explicit ownership of your position.
Before difficult relationship conversations, write three…
Before a difficult conversation in a close relationship, externalize your position in writing with three components: what you think, what you're willing to change, and what you're not willing to change.
Voice domain expertise that contradicts authority…
When you possess domain-specific expertise relevant to a decision, voice your dissenting assessment even when it conflicts with hierarchical authority, because withholding situated knowledge creates epistemic fragility and constitutes professional negligence.
Frame professional dissent as questions — questions…
Frame professional dissent as questions rather than assertions when building credibility, because questions activate information-sharing while reducing social cost and allowing decision-makers to reach conclusions themselves.
Build dissent authority through demonstrated competence…
Build authority to dissent through demonstrated competence and calibrated prediction tracking, because self-authority without proven expertise is indistinguishable from arrogance and carries no credible weight.
Turn off all social platform push notifications — each one…
Eliminate variable ratio reinforcement triggers by turning off all push notifications from social platforms, because every notification is a prompt delivered at a moment of susceptibility designed to initiate engagement without triggers, breaking the reinforcement schedule.
Audit beliefs for algorithmic origins — positions acquired…
Audit your beliefs for algorithmic origins by identifying which positions trace primarily to repeated exposure within algorithmically curated environments, because beliefs acquired through engineered exposure rather than deliberate inquiry have not been subjected to sovereign epistemic standards.
AI generates inputs, you synthesize judgment — outsourcing…
When using AI systems, maintain explicit separation between input generation (AI-assisted) and judgment synthesis (human-retained), because outsourcing the integration function constitutes epistemic abdication regardless of input quality.
Quarterly authority audit
Conduct quarterly authority audits for one domain at a time using a structured format that records source, domain, basis of trust, scope of expertise, last verification date, and delegation level.
Trace why you trust each source
Trace each trusted source to whether trust stems from demonstrated expertise, emotional resonance, social proof, first-encounter effects, or algorithmic repetition to detect unexamined authority delegations.
Construct a three-perspective input set
Before making significant decisions, construct a diverse input set that includes at least one person likely to disagree with your current leaning, one with direct domain experience, and one outside the domain who might see what insiders miss.
Authentic dissent improves judgment; assigned devil's…
Seek people who genuinely disagree with your position rather than assigning devil's advocate roles, because only authentic dissent triggers the broader cognitive processing that improves judgment quality.
Three filters for AI contradictions
After encountering AI recommendations that contradict your careful analysis, apply three filters in sequence: Does this present unconsidered evidence? Does this identify verifiable reasoning errors? Does it merely state a different conclusion without showing work? Only the first two warrant revision.
Classify self-trust gaps as competence deficits…
When self-trust gaps appear, classify them as either competence deficits (lack skill/knowledge) or calibration errors (possess competence but don't trust it), because these require fundamentally different interventions—training for the former, evidence collection for the latter.
Extract values from recurring conditions across 5+ peak…
Extract values from peak experiences by identifying recurring conditions across 5+ moments of deep engagement, not from the surface activities themselves.
Four-step resentment protocol
Record resentment triggers using the four-step protocol: notice the resentment, identify the specific trigger event, name the violated value, externalize it in writing.
When the same value is violated across 3+ independent…
When the same value violation triggers resentment across three or more independent contexts, treat that value as core rather than situational.
Resistance to an "optimized" future reveals non-negotiable…
When counterfactual scenarios (optimized futures) produce strong resistance rather than pull, the resistance reveals non-negotiable values that define your identity boundaries.
Trace each value to its origin — if you acquired it before…
Before accepting a value as truly yours, trace its origin to the earliest point you can remember holding it and evaluate whether you had the developmental capacity to choose it deliberately at that time.
Version-control your values — document old value, new…
When a value shift occurs, document both the old value and the triggering experience in a timestamped changelog rather than overwriting your value records, because the trajectory of revision contains information that the current state alone cannot provide.
Check if conflicting values are both terminal — many…
Before declaring a value conflict irresolvable, verify that both values are truly terminal rather than instrumental—many apparent conflicts between values dissolve when you discover one is actually a means to the other.
Write both values side-by-side and articulate the sacrifice
When facing a decision between two conflicting values, name both values explicitly in writing side-by-side before choosing, then articulate the specific sacrifice being made ('I am choosing X over Y today because ___') to make the trade-off conscious rather than implicit.
Use lexicographic ordering for value conflicts
When two values conflict in a decision and you cannot satisfy both, consult your pre-established lexicographic hierarchy—satisfy the higher-ranked value first, then optimize for the lower-ranked value within that constraint.
Rank values through pairwise comparison — 'If I could only…
Force-rank values through pairwise comparison ('If I could only honor one of these two, which would I choose?') rather than attempting top-down global ranking, because pairwise comparison bypasses social desirability bias and reveals actual preferences.
Validate your values hierarchy against 3 past decisions…
Test your stated values hierarchy against three past difficult decisions to verify whether it produces the choices you actually made—if it doesn't, either the hierarchy is miscalibrated or the past choices violated your values, and both discoveries are actionable.
Define values so an observer could predict your behavior…
Define each abstract value with operational specificity by writing one to three sentences that would enable an observer to predict your behavior in concrete situations, not dictionary definitions.
Name one behavior this week that demonstrates each value…
For each articulated value, specify one concrete behavior you will perform this week that demonstrates the value—if you cannot name the behavior, the articulation lacks operational specificity and needs revision.
Write a disqualification test for each value — what…
Write a disqualification test for each stated value—a specific condition that would prove the value is aspirational rather than operative—to distinguish values you hold from values you wish you held.
Test values with three escalating trade-offs — write what…
Construct three escalating hypothetical trade-off scenarios for each core value where preserving the value requires sacrificing progressively larger competing goods, writing what you would actually do (not what you think you should do) to reveal the value's true weight in your hierarchy.
Ask 'Given that I compromised this value, what…
Use the pre-mortem frame 'Given that I compromised [value], what were the circumstances?' rather than 'Would I ever compromise this value?' to bypass identity-defense mechanisms and reveal actual vulnerability conditions.
When frustrated by someone, hypothesize which value…
When someone's behavior frustrates you, generate a hypothesis about which value they were honoring (not which value they violated) to shift from projection to perspective-taking before responding.
If you can't imagine a scenario where another value…
Generate at least one scenario where someone else's value hierarchy would produce a better outcome than yours—if you cannot construct such a scenario, you have not separated your values from your identity.
When sacred values collide, use pre-established hierarchy…
When sacred values collide in tragic trade-offs, resolve by pre-established hierarchy and explicitly accept the cost—attempting to treat all sacred values as equally weighted guarantees paralysis whenever they conflict.
Did you consult your values before deciding, or construct…
Test for post-hoc rationalization by asking whether you consulted your values hierarchy before choosing or constructed a values-based story afterward—if values only appeared in the narrative after the decision, they were comfort mechanisms, not decision inputs.
Unexplained energy drain despite rest and manageable load?…
When autonomously motivated work drains energy despite adequate rest and manageable workload, audit values-behavior alignment before adjusting workload or seeking medical intervention.
A value that eliminates all options but one may be fused…
When a value eliminates all decision options but one, test whether you have fused the value with a rigid rule; if it eliminates none, test whether the value has degraded into abstract decoration.